ML20059J541
| ML20059J541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1993 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402010062 | |
| Download: ML20059J541 (5) | |
Text
-
- - o. o o m........
EG;sw miss pw N0TATI0N V 0 T E:: __/ kN RESPONSE SHEET
....fR,.......i ;3 T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-285 - PROPOSED RULEMAKING - NEW PART 76, " CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS" ANo SECY-93-285A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON PROPOSED PART 76,
" CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS" APPROVED X(in part)
DISAPPROVED x (in part)
ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
1 27CO 7
db. d, / 4 ( M ~ u 9402010062 931217 EENaeEEfoeEEPDR SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/ xx /
December 17, 1993 DATE 3
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
-/
'0 r
NO ch ENTERED ON "AS" YES xx
L l
l 1
l Comments of Commissioner de Planque on SECY 93-285 and SECY 93-285A I approve in part and disapprove in part.
Additions to Statement of Consideration. Section E. Overview of Certification Process. Initial Certification. Findino of Comoliance or Approval of Comoliance Plan. Findino of Non-Compliance or Disapproval of Comoliance Plan. Annual Certification. Amendment of Certificate. and Timely Renewal. Daaes 19-25 of SECY-93 285A The revisions to the Statement of Consideration of the application / certification processes in SECY-93-285A provide a greatly improved descri ation of the processes set forth in the draft rule. The revisions set forth a worcable and balanced process for the initial application / approval of the certificate as well as subsequent annual submittals and approvals.
Section 76.45 In Section 76.45, Application for amendment of certificate, as well as in the Statement of Consideration, staff should clarify that it is the Corporation that would apply for an amendment of its application: NRC would then amend the Corporation's certificate. The use of the term " amendment" should be similarly clarified where appropriate.
Section 76.68 Section 76.68 and the Statement of Consideration, Plant Changes, should be clarified to indicate that when a request for changes involves an Unreviewed Safety Question, staff's intent is that Section 76.45, Application for Amendment, is applicable.
Statement of Consideration. Daaes 12 and 13 I do not approve of the use of 10 mg soluble uranium either as a criterion for judging accident scenarios or for potential application for evaluating operations. Staff is basing the use of the 10 mg value on NUREG-1391, " Chemical l
Toxicity of Uranium Hexifluoride Compared to Acute Effects of Radiation" (see page 4) which, following a review of the literature, concludes that:
"Thus, an intake of soluble uranium of 9.6 mg, rounded off to 10 mg, is selected in this t
report as being comparable to a radiation exposure of 25 rem since neither of these exposure conditions have significant acute effects to the exposed individual." I find this conclusion unsupported by the evidence presented in NUREG 1391.
The value, 9.6 mg is the current NRC limit for a weekly intake which also applies to a single short duration intake. NUREG-1391 provides a table on health effects from intake of soluble uranium (Table 2,
) age 3) which lists values, for
" Threshold for permanent renal damage" and "Thresvid for transient renal injury or effect", of 8 and 40 mg respectively. NUREG-1391, however, then notes cases where workers with higher levels of uranium did not incur injury. On pages 3 and
- 4. NUREG 1391 states that. with respect to the reports in the literature.:
i "These observed effects do not appear to support a threshold for transient effects as low as 8 mg as shown in Table 2", and "These results also suggest that i
the values in Table 2 for permanent kidney damage may be too low". Therefore, for the purposes stated in the proposed Statement of Consideration, the value of 10 mg is unduly conservative and so does not provide the recommended equivalent 1
9 of 25 rem. Based upon the data presented in NUREG-1391, a value of 40-50 mg would be more appropriate.
Section 76.93 and Statement of Consideration Da_qe 14 I am not comfortable with adoption of Part 50's Appendix B as the quality assurance criteria because of the potential implementation problems. NRC's own regulatory review group is questioning much of the implementation of Appendix B.
The fuel cycle industry is working to develop quality assurance (QA) criteria based on NQA 1 (albeit these are not developed yet). I would prefer that the draft rule allow the Corporation to submit a QA program on a graded approach based on NQA 1 rather than Appendix B to Part 50.
Section 76.35 and Statement of Consideration Daae 11 For Sections 76.35 (k) and (1), the Statement of Consideration should further expand and clarify NRC's intent in the Decontamination / Decommissioning (D&D) area. See attached edits.
Reculatory Analysis. Section 76.76 and Statement of Consideration oaoe 5 It should be recognized that the gaseous diffusion facilities already are subject to many operating, safety, security and other requirements, and, according to staff, have had many years of operation without serious events. The DOE Orders, l
the transition document. and DOE's safety documentation (i.e., the SAR, which is being updated, technical standards / operational safety requirements, gnd operating procedures) as well as other documentation, provide a baseline for NRC to evaluate what might be needed for adequate protection. However, it appears that the staff has developed a complete set of new recuirements in Part 76 rather than i
using the existing set of requirements from DOE cocuments or suitably revising j
Part 70. Many of the requirements proposed in this draft rule are new or more stringent than those now imposed on NRC's other fuel cycle facilities licensed under Parts 70 and 30. At the October 26, 1993 briefing on the proposed draft rule, the staff indicated that the reason they had not based the development of the proposed rule on the existing DOE requirements was that it was difficult for staff to delve through 80 different Orders and extract the necessary information and understand its safety context. DOE has subsequently developed a transition document that was transmitted to NRC staff in July 1993, and consolidated all-DOE requirements into one document. Further, I understand that at some point staff has done or is doing a comparison of the requirements in the DOE transition document with NRC's proposed draft rule. It seems to me that where the proposed provisions of the new Part 76 differ from the existing DOE recuirements or the appropriate corresponding Part 70 requirements, discussion anc justification is needed. Therefore, a properly constructed regulatory analysis should be included in the proposed draft rule. This analysis should be provided to the Commission as soon as possible and prior to publication of the draft rule. In order to expedite the process, staff may submit a comparison of the differences in requirements and supporting justification as soon as possible. The cost / benefit analysis would not need to be provided prior to publication of the draft rule, but could be provided at a later date. Based on this regulatory analysis. the 1
Commission would then provide its views on the appropriate proposed rule requirements to be published for public comment.
I agree with Commissioner Remick, in supporting the concept of backfit.
In light of the above, which would establish a firm technical basis for the rule. Section 2
76.76. Backfitting, should be re-written to apply immediately at the time the final rule goes into effect.
Sections 76.85 and 76.91 If safety analyses as discussed in Section 76.85, are going to be required. I support Commissioner Rogers approach that the term " existing systems intended to i
mitigate the release consequences" includes not only hardware features, but procedures as well. I also support Commissioner Rogers in his request to remove the additional requirements that in Section 76.91, emergency preparedness, that are not required by Part 70.
i s
t 4
L 8
3
i information and hardwara, a d:scripticn of the Corp: ration's resp ns; necessary to implement International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and a description of the waste treatment and management program.
-Wth recpact-teIhe proposed paragraphs 76.35 and (
, wh+eW-vould require a description of the depleted uranium and waste management programs, including funding plans to assure availability of funds to implement the programs, the Cv eiston requests public cus;,ent on+appropriat+-4nterpretatfod l
gl%
1992 (i.he Actf.Lo%"r V The Comission is inclined to cf the Energy l'clicy Aat ui interpret the Act to terminate NRC regulatory jurisdiction over the Department's gaseous diffusion plants if and when the Corporation ceases operations and the plants are brought to a cold shutdown condition.
Oversight responsibility would then revert to DOE which will be responsible for the plants' decontamination and decomissioning including disposal of all wastes and disposition of any depleted uranium at the sites. Under this interpretation, the Corporation's plans for wastes and depleted uranium will therefore be matters for DOE, rather than NRC, to address. The Comission pproprag & 4e everey Wy Adoe mm, requests coments on 4 nterpretation?4andaftertakingintoaccountany such coments, the Comission may eliminate the requirementgunder 76.35 ) and
).
The proposed rule would require any application which contains Restricted Data to be prepared in such a manner that all Restricted Data is separated from the unclassified infomation.
Section 76.85 Assessment of accidents. This section contains the requirement for performance of a safety analysis of the potential for releases of radioactive material from accidents.
_T.w-ert L, 11
- Tkt, 6
\\UGJe Nfc2 TOE h h C6hlbNdd (t OfLornYnl%bnb '
0 q(see Federal vecdse fora dewri phm oP fk knd % ud toe $bgirevrentsh curd a endined 4e intrpree thh ec has no regulabw 3tr&dichrn m Stzs L __
hvtkX._ _
_._ 2.
=- -~
-